Appellant urges court to bar felony-murder convictions for juveniles in Hawthorne case

Colin Patrick, who identified himself as counsel for appellant Josh Hawthorne, told the court that Washington's felony-murder scheme "has been routinely and accurately described as harsh when it has been applied to adults" and is "beyond harsh when applied to juveniles." Patrick said the statute can "maximize[] punishment for minimal culpability," creating a strict-liability offense that is especially harmful for juvenile defendants.

Patrick argued the Eighth Amendment and Article I, section 14 protect against not only excessive sentences but also forms of criminalization that consign juveniles to punitive outcomes they cannot foresee. "The sentence that one has can never be divorced from the charge that one has had alleged against," he told the court, urging that the interplay between how an offense is criminalized and how it is punished supports categorical relief.

The appellant asked the court to recognize that felony murder's standard sentencing range is set by the underlying offense and that simply relying on judicial downward departures under Houston-Sconiers does not cure the constitutional problem. Patrick said vacating or recharacterizing the underlying conviction is necessary to ensure juveniles receive the protections the Eighth Amendment and Article I, section 14 were designed to provide.

If the court accepts the appellant's framing, the remedy Patrick pressed for would alter which standard range applies at resentencing and, he said, would better align sentencing outcomes with juveniles' diminished culpability.